Murray Capybarad 🏴

This kind of pure retardation can only be held by people who have no understanding of political history. In 1992, Ross Perot did far more than your protest vote could ever do. Far more than any online right movement could ever manage. He ran an entire third party campaign practically self funded and in such a way that it pretty much only drew voters who would otherwise back the Republican Party. He single handedly lost them that election, and you know what got adopted from his platform? Pretty much nothing really. So this has already been played out on a far grander scale with much bigger stakes and billions of dollars behind a singular man with a clear platform, and it didn't actually change anything. What you have, is a very dispersed, unclear "movement" of people without any actual clear leader to them. Further, you are trying to persuade boomers right now. The same people who think you can still walk in, give the boss a firm handshake, and tell him you want the job and you're ready to start tomorrow. They cannot grasp how that has changed, you think they could ever hope to understand your niche online politics? Further, with you all saying vote democrat or stay home, that actually conforms more to what they believe. There's an adage they have that they have internalized entirely as the way the world works: "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're old, you have no brain." They just think you are liberals or leftists or otherwise weird, do not understand you, and think you are young and stupid and will simply grow out of all this. To some degree they are correct, but they also, again, will not listen to you or hear you. Losing elections, also, doesn't kill the GOP really at all. This does nothing to effect the think tanks, the institutions, the various interests which exists. It also doesn't communicate what you want it to, because you will not be in the room when they ask "so what happened." What they are far, far more likely to be told, is "So, we took on messaging and deportation campaigns that played poorly with the voters, we had too much of an attempt to appeal to these niche online groups who did not manifest at the polls, we ought to instead moderate our messaging and do more to appeal to women and minorities and cut back on some of these more extreme positions." I guarantee you, that message is far more likely to reach their ears than the one you want to send. Now the other issue is your rhetoric is also damned if you do, because lets say the midterms do go relatively well. Congratulations, you've just proven definitively, empirically, you have no ability to sway elections at all and so you are irrelevant. If you actually wanted to do things, you would be far more involved in the actual primary campaigns, and would set about building things which have value electorally. For example, if you had even just like, a few dozen guys part of some organization which could go out and door knock for a campaign, you wouldn't need money. That is valuable enough that they would listen to you. Or, another example, the GOP is currently in a state where many, many counties have vacancies within their leadership positions, ones which can be easily filled just by showing up and being a respectable young white man, and then so long as you don't do anything too retarded, you can pretty climb the ladders and then have far more influence. What you have is small, niche groups of people invested in politics outside the basic norms. The actual answer is to as much as possible organize them to take effective actions, which very few do, which outsizes your influence. What you instead argue is that you ignore all of this, and throw everything at the general election, where you are now competing 1:1 with the masses, and with well over 100 million votes likely to be cast. It is the single worst application of the only asset you actually have possible. You're just bad at politics.